View report page

136
being the apportioned amount in respect of his property in the
said road. Upon the hearing of the summons Mr. Austincounsel)
represented the Yestry,and Mr. Geo. Lyon, Mr. Stotesbury
and a technical objection was taken by his Counsel that the
land of the Canal Company agreed by them to be given up for
the purposes of the new bridge which "bounded" and "abutted"
the present termination of the road, not having been assessed, the
apportionment was bad, and the Magistrate, R. H. B. Marshanv
Esq., dismissed the summons without costs upon this objection..
The Yestry on the 7th December ordered a fresh apportionment to
be made in accordance with this decision, and the Yestry of the
21st December in making such apportionment resolved:—"That
having regard to the decision of the Magistrate, that the land,
which the Surrey Commercial Docks Company are the owners
abutting the termination of the road, should be assessed, are of
the opinion that inasmuch as the land would form part of theroadway
leading to the bridge shortly to be constructed by theMetropolitan
Board, and which will be given up by the Company
to effect a great public improvement, that it is just and
expedient to assess the land in a much less amount than the
other owners."
Mr. Stotesbury having refused payment of the fresh
apportionment amounting to £548 3s. 8d. upon 28 houses and
building land, a summons was issued against him returnable in
the Greenwich Police Court before Mr.Marsham; on the hearing of
this summons, Mr. J. V. Austin again appeared for the Yestry, andMr.
George Lyon for the Defendant. The Defendant's Counsel'
then took two objections, viz:— firstly, that the measurement
was inaccurate, and secondly, that the Yestry had no legal power
to assess the land of the Surrey Commercial Dock Compmy (being
land which they had agreed to surrender to the Metropolitan Board
of Works without compensation for the erection of the bridge) in a
different sum to the Defendent's land, which is valuable building